ERIC EJ833682: The Effect of Teachers' Attitude toward Inclusion on the Practice and Success Levels of Children with and without Disabilities in Physical Education

2008·0.13 MB·English

by  ERIC

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008

THE EFFECT OF TEACHERS’ ATTITUDE TOWARD INCLUSION ON THE PRACTICE
AND SUCCESS LEVELS OF CHILDREN WITH AND WITHOUT DISABILITIES IN
PHYSICAL EDUCATION

Steven Elliott,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the relationship between teachers’
attitudes toward the inclusion of children with mild to moderate mental disabilities
in physical education settings and the amount of practice attempts performed and the
levels of success attained by these students compared to their peers without
disabilities. The findings suggested a relationship between teacher attitude toward
inclusion and teacher effectiveness. Teachers with a positive attitude toward
inclusion provided all of their students with significantly more practice attempts, at a
higher level of success.

Recent laws and legislations have resulted in physical educators teaching classes that include children
with special needs. Students who have mild or moderate mental disabilities such as mild mental
retardation, learning disabilities, and emotional / behavioral disorders are generally placed into regular
physical education classes without an accompanying teacher’s aid. The inclusion of students with
disabilities into regular physical education classes has provided a tremendous challenge to physical
educators who have strived to meet the needs of the included children without neglecting the needs of
the other children.

Researchers have attempted to discover the factors associated with the successful inclusion of students
with disabilities. The role of teachers’ attitudes has been studied. The majority of these studies in
physical education have assumed that a positive attitude towards inclusion was necessary for the
successful inclusion of children with disabilities into physical education (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992; Tripp
& Sherrill, 1991). These studies have examined the relationship between different types of attitudes and
variables such as teacher age (Rizzo, 1985; Rizzo & Wright, 1988), gender (Patrick, 1987), teaching
experience (Marston & Leslie, 1983), educational preparation (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992), perceived
teaching competence (Rizzo & Wright, 1988), and type and severity of student disability (Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1991).

Several student and teacher related variables have been significantly and consistently linked with
specific teacher attitudes toward inclusion (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). Student grade level and severity of
disability have been found to influence teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Specifically, students with
disabilities were viewed more favorably in lower grade levels than in higher grade levels (Minner &
Knutson, 1982; Rizzo, 1984), and children with less severe disabilities were viewed more favorably
than those with more severe disabilities (Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1987;
Tripp, 1988).

Research on teacher variables has revealed that attitudes were related to self-perceptions of
competence, educational preparation, and experience in teaching students with disabilities (Rizzo &
Vispoel, 1992). Specifically, teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion were more likely to be favorable if
they perceived themselves as better teachers (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright, 1988), had
greater education preparation (Rizzo, 1985), and had more years of experience in teaching children
with disabilities (Marston & Leslie, 1983; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991). The research findings on the
relationship between attitudes toward inclusion and student and teacher variables are summarized in
Table 1(next page).

Few studies have directly examined the relationship between teacher expectations or attitudes towards
students with and without disabilities and student motor performance in mainstreamed physical
education classes. Karper and Martinek (1983) conducted an exploratory study to determine the
differential relationships among teacher perceptions of student expression of effort, teacher
expectations, grade, school, teacher, gender, and being disabled / non-disabled on gross motor
48
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
performance among children with and without disabilities in inclusive physical education classes.
Student gross motor performance was significantly related to and could be partially predicted: (a) by
teacher perceptions of student expression of effort, (b) by grade level, and (c) by teacher expectations
for overall performance in physical skill as well as teacher expectations for ability to reason. The
finding that student performance was consistent with expectations held by their teachers lent indirect
support to the ideas first proposed in general education settings by Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968).
Table 1.
Summary of Research on Teacher’ Attitudes Toward Inclusion (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992)

Research Conclusion Researcher(s)

Students with disabilities are viewed more Minner & Knutson, 1982; Rizzo, 1984.
favorably in lower grades than in higher grade
levels.

Students with less severe disabilities are viewed Rizzo, 1984; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1981; Rizzo &
more favorably than those with more severe Wright, 1987; Tripp, 1988.
handicaps.

Teachers’ attitudes are more likely to be (a) Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo & Wright,
favorable if they have: (a) higher perceived 1988.
teaching competence, (b) greater educational (b) Rizzo, 1985.
preparation, and (c) more experience in teaching (c) Marston & Leslie, 1983; Rizzo & Vispoel,
students with disabilities. 1991.

No gender differences in attitude toward Patrick, 1987; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991; Rizzo &
teaching students with disabilities. Wright, 1988.

Older physical educators have less favorable Rizzo & Wright, 1988; Rizzo & Vispoel, 1991.
attitudes than younger educators do.

Effective physical education teachers provide their students with lots of successful practice
opportunities in a structured learning environment (Blakemore, 1986; Graham, Holt/Hale, & Parker,
2007; Harrison, 1987). The importance of student success has been recognized by researchers who
have investigated the advantages of employing a mastery learning model in physical education
(Blakemore, 1986; Rosenshine, 1983). A thorough review of literature revealed that no studies have
directly investigated the relationship between a physical educator’s attitude towards inclusion and the
practice opportunities and success experienced by both students with and without disabilities.

Attitude research in education and physical education has grown increasingly popular over the past
twenty years (Folsom-Meek & Rizzo, 2002). This increase has been driven by the belief that the
attitude of the teacher can have a direct influence on the successful inclusion of children with
disabilities into regular classes (Rizzo & Vispoel, 1992). This investigation was a response to the need
for empirical evidence regarding the relationship between teacher attitudes toward inclusion and
student practice attempts and levels of success.

Method
Questionnaire Selection
The PEATID-III questionnaire was used to measure teacher’s attitudes towards teaching inclusionary
classes. The PEATID-II was originally developed by Rizzo in 1983 (originally known as the PEATH)
and has been revised twice (Rizzo, 1986; 1993). The PEATID-III consists of a series of statements
which requires teachers to express their beliefs about teaching individuals with disabilities in their
regular physical education classes. Evidence of validity and reliability related to the PEATID-III has
recently been reported by Folsom-Meek and Rizzo (2002). Construct validity of the PEATID-III was
obtained through principal components analysis. Reliability was estimated through the coefficient alpha
(Cronbach, 1951) and was reported at .88 for the total scale. The study was delimited to investigating
the relationship between teacher attitudes toward inclusion and the number of practice trials performed
and success levels achieved by students with mild / moderate mental disabilities and students without
49
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
disabilities in regular physical education classes. The questionnaire did not investigate attitudes toward
the inclusion of students with physical disabilities or more severe mental disabilities.

Questionnaire Mailing, Collection, and Scoring
The PEATID-III questionnaire was mailed to the school address of all elementary physical educators in
the school districts who had given the investigator permission to conduct research in their schools.
Enclosed with the questionnaire was a set of instructions and a stamped return-addressed envelope. The
questionnaire was formatted so that it was attractive, easy for the teachers to read and answer, and
convenient to code and score.

The main portion of the original PEATID-III consisted of 12 statements such as, Teaching students
labeled as ‘mild / moderate mental disabilities’ in regular physical education classes with nondisabled
students will disrupt the harmony of the class, and Having to teach students labeled ‘mild / moderate
mental disabilities’ in regular physical education classes with nondisabled students places an unfair
burden on teachers. Under each of the 12 statements a 5-point Likert scale (i.e., 1=strongly disagree,
2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree) was provided for the respondents to answer each
question. Individual questions and total questionnaire scores were derived from the items and
represented the responder’s attitude toward including students with mild / moderate mental disabilities
in his or her class. A total questionnaire score was based on the sum of item scores divided by the
number of items so that they were interpreted about the original 5-point Likert scale. To derive proper
scale mean scores for negatively phrased statements, the scores were reversed (i.e., 5=strongly
disagree, 4=disagree, 3=undecided, 2=agree, 1=strongly agree).

Participant Selection and Grouping
After reviewing the completed questionnaires, 20 elementary physical education teachers were selected
as the participants in this study. These participants were assigned into two groups depending on their
attitude towards inclusion. Each group consisted of 10 participants who had between 2-25 years of
teaching experience. An additional five teachers at each end of the attitudinal continuum were
identified as back-up participants. The selected teachers were sent a packet of consent forms (student
and parents / guardians) to distribute to the students in their inclusionary class. The teachers proceeded
to collect the returned consent form.

Selection of Students
The first step in the selection of the two students who would be observed required the teacher to define
the skill level of the student with disabilities on the main skill being observed. The researcher described
four potential skill levels at which the student with disabilities might be operating. The teacher then
selected the skill level of the student with a disability on the main activity that was going to be
observed.

Once the skill level of the student with mild / moderate mental disabilities was stated by the teacher,
another student without a disability at the same skill level was selected. This technique of matching
students based on their skill level represented a matched-subject design (Sprinthall, 1997). The teacher
proceeded to identify four students of the same gender and same age as the child without disabilities
from the pool of students who had returned consent forms. Upon the arrival of the children into the
gymnasium the teacher pointed out the student with disabilities and the four children who were at the
same skill level as the student with disabilities. The researcher proceeded to randomly select one of the
students from the four selected students who returned a consent form. In this respect, the students were
matched in terms of their skill level, gender, and age.

Each teacher was observed twice while teaching the class with the included child. The data collected
from the two observations were averaged to provide a single score for each student on the dependent
variables. Two observations and the use of an average score provided more accurate data on the
amount of practice attempts and successful practice attempts children had in these classes.

Students were observed performing the specific skills during the class and two things were recorded.
They were: (a) each practice trial, and (b) whether each trial was a success according to the teacher’s
definition. A systematic observational check sheet for analysis of the form components of the skill was
utilized.

50
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
Testing Set-up and Protocol
The students were not overtly identified or marked in any way so as not to bring attention to them. The
two students participated in the class in the same manner as the other students, or as directed by the
teacher. The observer was located on the side of the gymnasium in a safe area that did not interfere
with the lesson and was able to clearly see the entire gymnasium from the observation point. The
inconspicuous positioning of the researcher also minimized the potential of a Hawthorne Effect on the
teachers and/or students (Sprinthall, 1997).

Scoring
The scoring instrument used in this study was designed so that it would provide data on how many
attempts per minute each student had, and what percentage of total attempts were successful. The
number of attempts per minute for each student was found by dividing the total number of attempts by
the number of minutes observed. The percentage of successful attempts was calculated by dividing the
number of successful attempts by the total number of attempts and then multiplying by 100 (e.g., 25
successful attempts divided by 50 total attempts, multiplied by 100 equals 50%).

Data Analysis
The data from the observations were analyzed using a two-factor split-plot or mixed ANOVA design.
This represents a combination of the one-factor repeated measures model and the two-factor fixed-
effects model (Lomax, 1998). This design was used because teacher attitude represents a between-
subjects factor and the type of students represents a within-subjects factor. Each subject (i.e., teacher)
responded to each level of the repeated factor (i.e., type of student), but to only one level of the non-
repeated factor (i.e., teacher attitude). Separate analyses were performed for each of the dependent
variables in the study. A significant F statistic (alpha set at .05) for the main effects was followed by
the examination of the marginal means. A significant F statistic (alpha set at .05) for the interaction
effect was further examined by the use of a series of one-way ANOVAs that tested for simple effects.

Results
The mean number of practice attempts performed by each student during the two observations were
calculated (see Table 2) and analyzed using a 2 x 2 split-plot analysis of variance. The results indicated
that there was no statistically significant interaction between the teacher’s attitude and the type of
student, F (1,18) = .495, p = .491. However, the number of practice attempts were independently
influenced by the teachers attitude, F (1,18) = 9.022, p = .008. This suggests a main effect for the
teacher type. A comparison of the marginal means revealed that students taught by teachers with a
positive attitude toward inclusion received significantly more practice attempts (M = 8.2 /min) than
students taught by teachers with a negative attitude toward inclusion (M = 4.7 /min). The number of
practice attempts were also independently influenced by the type of student, F (1,18) = 19.841, p =
.000. This suggests a main effect for the type of student. A comparison of the marginal means revealed
that students without special needs received significantly more practice attempts (M = 8.35 /min) than
students with special needs (M = 4.55 /min).
Table. 2
Analysis of Variance Source Table: Number of Practice Attempts

Source SS DF MS F-Ratio Sig. Mean
Between
Attitude 22.5 1 122.5 9.022 .008 Pos 8.2
Neg 4.7
Error 244.4 18 13.58

Within
Students 44.4 1 144.4 19.841 .00 Reg 8.35
SN 4.55
Interaction 3.6 1 3.6 .495 .491
(Att x Stud)
Error 131 18 7.28

Note. Pos = Positive attitude; Neg = Negative attitude; Reg = Without special needs; SN = With Special Needs
51
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
The mean percentage of successful practice attempts performed by the students with and without mild
mental disabilities during the two observations were calculated. These data were then analyzed using a
2 x 2 split-plot analysis, with results presented in Table 3. The results indicated that the type of teacher
attitude and the type of student did not interact, F (1,18) = .380, p = .545. No statistically significant
main effect was found between the type of teacher attitude and the number of successful practice
attempts, F (1,18) = 4.388, p = .051. However a trend was noted which approached statistical
significance (p = .051). Descriptive analysis revealed that students in classes taught by teachers with
positive attitudes performed a higher percentage of successful practice attempts (M = 80%) than did
students in classes taught by teachers with negative attitudes (M = 67.55%).
Table 3
Analysis of Variance Source Table: Percentage of Successful Practice Attempts

Source SS DF MS F-Ratio Sig Mean

Between
Attitude 550.025 1 1550.025 4.388 .051 Pos 80
Neg 67.55
Error 6358.450 18 353.247

Within
Students 570.025 1 570.025 2.488 .132 Reg 77.55
SN 70
Interaction 87.025 1 87.025 .380 .545
(Att x Stud)

Error 4123.450 18 229.081

Note. Pos = Positive attitude; Neg = Negative attitude; Reg = Without special needs; SN = With Special Needs.

In addition, no statistically significant main effect was found between the type of student and the
percentage of practice attempts that were successful, F(1,18) = 2.488, p = .132. Descriptive analysis
revealed that the students without disabilities received a slightly higher percentage of successful
practice attempts (M = 82.3%) than the students with disabilities (M = 77.7%), when taught by teachers
with positive attitudes towards inclusion. Students without disabilities also had a higher percentage of
successful practice attempts (M = 72.8%) than students with disabilities (M = 62.3%), when taught by
teachers with negative attitudes towards inclusion.

Discussion
Relationship Between Teacher Attitudes and Practice Opportunities
The results of this ANOVA suggested that the type of teacher attitude toward inclusion did affect the
number of practice opportunities that the students with and without disabilities received in physical
education classes. The students in the classes taught by teachers with positive attitudes had
significantly more practice attempts (M = 8.2 /min) than the students taught by teachers with negative
attitudes (M = 4.7 /min). According to numerous experts in physical education (e.g., Graham,
Holt/Hale, & Parker, 2007; Rink, 1996; Siedentop & Tannehill, 2000), effective teachers provide their
students with more opportunities for practice attempts than less effective teachers. With this in mind, it
could be concluded that teachers in the present study with a positive attitude toward inclusion were
more effective teachers than teachers with a negative attitude toward inclusion.

The number of practice attempts were also independently influenced by the type of student. This
suggested a main effect for the type of student. Specifically, the students without special needs received
significantly more practice attempts (M = 8.35 /min) than the students with special needs (M = 4.55
/min) regardless of teacher attitude. This finding concurred with the results reported by Temple and
Walkley (1999) who measured the motor engaged time of students with mild intellectual disabilities
and students without disabilities in physical education classes. These researchers defined motor
engaged time as the amount of time that a student was engaged in motor activity related to the goals of
the setting, including motor appropriate and inappropriate activities. Similar to the results of the present
52
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
study, Temple and Walkley found that students with mild intellectual disabilities were significantly less
motor engaged than their peers without disabilities.

The type of teacher attitude and the type of student did not interact to produce differences in the
number of student practice attempts. The lack of a statistically significant interaction effect was
surprising as the researcher expected to find that students with special needs had a similar amount of
practice opportunities as students without special needs when taught by teachers with a positive attitude
towards inclusion. This expectation was based on the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein,
1980). According to this theory, a teacher’s beliefs or attitudes towards something are expected to
provide insight about actual behaviors.

The lack of an interaction may be misleading. The number of practice attempts made by students with
disabilities (M = 6 /min) were lower than their non-disabled peers (M = 10.4 /min) in the classes taught
by teachers with a positive attitude. However, the number of practice attempts made by students with
special needs in the classes taught by teachers with a positive attitude (i.e. M = 6 /min) was comparable
to the number of practice attempts made by the students without special needs (M = 6.3 /min) in classes
taught by teachers with negative attitudes, and much higher than children with special needs (M = 3.1
/min) in the classes taught by teachers with negative attitudes. The lack of a significant interaction was
probably due to the teachers with the positive attitudes providing a very high number of practice
attempts to the children without disabilities (M = 10.4 /min).

Relationship Between Teacher Attitudes and Student Success
The results of this ANOVA suggested that the type of teacher attitude did not affect the number of
successful practice opportunities that the students with and without disabilities received in physical
education classes when the definitions of success were stated by the teacher. The teachers with the
positive and negative attitudes toward inclusion provided different definitions of success for the
students with and without disabilities in their classes. These definitions of success represented the
individual teachers’ expectations of each child. In the pre-observation conference, the 10 teachers with
negative attitudes towards inclusion selected 85% of the components of the skills that they would be
teaching as the success criteria for the children in their classes without special needs. In contrast, they
selected 69.9% of the same components as the success criteria for their students with special needs. The
10 teachers with positive attitudes towards inclusion had higher expectations for all of their students.
The positive attitudinal teachers selected 93% of the components of the skills that they would be
teaching as the success criteria for students without special needs and 78% for students with special
needs.

The notion that teachers demanded less from the students that they had lowered expectations of has
been well documented in the literature (Beez, 1968; Cousineau & Luke, 1990; Martinek, 1981;
Martinek & Karper, 1983). The finding that teachers with negative attitudes had noticeably lower
expectations for students with special needs in their classes, and that these students (i.e., with special
needs) still did not receive a significantly higher amount of successful practice attempts, suggested the
presence of a Pygmalion effect. A Pygmalion effect similar to that described by Martinek & Karper
(1983) and Mavi and Sharpe (2000) may have occurred whereby students with special needs in classes
taught by teachers with negative attitudes towards inclusion were aware of the lowered expectations
that the teacher had of them, that these lower expectations influenced what happened in the gymnasium
(e.g., student-teacher interactions, student motor skill performance), and that the students with special
needs conformed to the teachers’ expectations.

The type of teacher attitude and the type of student did not interact to produce significant differences in
the percentage of successful student practice attempts. The lack of a statistically significant interaction
was surprising as the researcher expected to find that the students with special needs received a similar
amount of successful practice opportunities as the students without special needs when taught by the
teachers with a positive attitude toward inclusion. The assumption that the percentage of successful
practice attempts would be similar for both groups of students in the classes taught by the teachers with
a positive attitude toward inclusion was based on the findings of previous studies. Past researchers have
found that student motor performance was consistent with the attitude and expectation of the teacher
(Cousineau & Luke, 1990; Karper & Martinek, 1983; Martinek, 1981). Cousineau and Luke identified
a relationship between ALT-PE and teachers expectations. They found that the ALT-PE of high
expectancy students was higher than the ALT-PE of medium expectancy students, which in turn was
higher than the ALT-PE of low expectancy students.
53
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
In conclusion, the findings from this study suggested a relationship between teacher attitude toward
inclusion and teacher effectiveness. Specifically, teachers with a positive attitude toward inclusion
provided all of their students with more practice attempts, at a higher level of success, and had higher
expectations for their students’ motor performance. These findings may have practical implications for
administrators involved in hiring physical educators and for college educators in physical education –
teacher education (PETE) program areas. Administrators may use these findings to seek out potential
physical educators who have a positive attitude towards inclusion. Administrators may also provide
more teacher in-services that focus on how to include children with special needs into regular physical
education classes. Teacher in-services have been found to improve participating teachers’attitudes
towards inclusion (Jansma & Schulz, 1984; Patrick, 1987). Additionally, the findings of the present
study may encourage PETE professionals to incorporate classes that deal with inclusionary issues into
pre-service teachers’ courses of study and to address individualizing teaching strategies in all pedagogy
courses.

References
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting behavior. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Beez, W. Influence of biased psychological reports on teacher behavior and pupil performance.
Proceedings of the 76th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1968, 3, 605-
606. (summary).
Blakemore, C. L. (1986, May-June). The effects and implications of teaching psychomotor skills using
mastery learning techniques. Paper presented at the International Conference on Research in Teacher
Education and Teaching in Physical Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Cousineau, W. J., & Luke, M. D. (1990). Relationships between teacher expectations and academic
learning time in sixth grade physical education basketball classes. Journal of Teaching in Physical
Education, 9, 262-271.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-
334.
Folsom-Meek, S.L. & Rizzo, T.L. (2002). Validating the physical educators' attitude toward teaching
individuals with disabilities (PEATID III) survey for future professionals. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 19(2), 141-154.
Graham, G., Holt/Hale, S. A., & Parker, M. (2007). Children moving: A reflective approach to
teaching physical education (7th ed.). McGraw Hill, New York..
Harrison, J. (1987). A review of the research on teacher effectiveness and its implications for current
practice. Quest, 39, 36-55.
Jansma, P., & Schulz, B. (1984). Attitude changes of physical educators toward mainstreaming via
inservice training. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 38, 144-151.
Karper, W. B., & Martinek. T. J. (1983). The differential influence of instructional factors on motor
performance among handicapped and non-handicapped children in mainstreamed physical education
classes. Educational Research Quarterly, 8(3), 40-46.
Lomax, R. G. (1998). Statistical concepts: A second course for educational and the behavioral
sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Marston, R., & Leslie, D. (1983). Teacher perceptions from mainstreamed vs. non-mainstreamed
teaching environments. The Physical Educator, 40, 8-15.
Martinek, T. J. (1981). Pygmalion in the gym: A model for the communication of teacher expectations
in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 52, 58-67.
Martinek, T.J., & Karper, W. B. (1983). A research model for determining causal effects of teacher
expectations in physical education instruction. Quest, 35, 155-168.
Mavi, H. F., & Sharpe, T. (2000). Reviewing the literature: Teacher and coach expectations with
implications for future research and practice. The Physical Educator, 57(3), 161-168.
Minner, S. H., & Knutson, R. (1982). Mainstreaming handicapped students into physical education:
Initial considerations. The Physical Educator, 39, 13-15.
Patrick, G. (1987). Improving attitudes toward disabled persons. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly,
4, 316-325.
Rink, J. (1996). Effective instruction in physical education. In S. Silvermann and C. Ennis (Eds.).
Student Learning in Physical Education (pp. 171-198). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
Rizzo, T. L. (1984). Attitudes of physical educators toward teaching handicapped pupils. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 1(3), 267-274.
Rizzo, T. L. (1985). Attributes related to teachers’ attitudes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 739-742.
54
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPECIAL EDUCATION Vol 23 No 3 2008
Rizzo, T. L. (1986). Physical educators’ attitude toward teaching the handicapped II. Unpublished
survey. Available from the author, Department of Kinesiology, California State University, San
Bernardino, CA. 92407-2397.
Rizzo, T. L. (1993). Physical educators’ attitude toward teaching individuals with
disabilities-III. Unpublished survey. Available from the author, Department of Kinesiology, California
State University, San Bernardino, CA. 92407-2397.
Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1991). Physical educators’ attributes and attitudes toward teaching
students with handicaps. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(1), 4-11.
Rizzo, T. L., & Vispoel, W. P. (1992). Changing attitudes about teaching students with handicaps.
Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 9(1), 54-63.
Rizzo, T.L., & Wright, R. G. (1987). Secondary school physical educators’ attitudes toward teaching
students with handicaps. American Corrective Therapy Journal, 41, 52-55.
Rizzo, T.L., & Wright, R. G. (1988). Selected attributes related to physical educators’ attitudes toward
teaching students with handicaps. Mental Retardation, 26, 307-309.
Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary School Journal, 83,
335-351.
Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectations and pupils’
intellectual development. San Francisco: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Siedentop, D. & Tannehill, D. (2000). Developing teaching skills in physical education (4th ed.).
Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Sprinthall, R. C. (1997). Basic statistical analysis (5th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Temple, V. A., & Walkley, J. W. (1999). Academic learning time – physical education (ALT-PE) of
students with mild intellectual disabilities in regular Victorian schools. Adapted Physical Activity
Quarterly, 16(1), 64-74.
Tripp, A. (1988). Comparison of attitudes of regular and adapted physical educators toward disabled
individuals. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 425-426.
Tripp, A., & Sherrill, C. (1991). Attitude theories of relevance to adapted physical education. Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 8(1), 12-27.

55